(2) ASATKHYATI So far, the account of error in the three schools of Buddhism is discussed.

Besides this account of error which is termed as Aimakhyati, there is another view named Asatkhyati or Sunyakhyati which is often ascribed to the Madhyamikas. No original Madhyamika treatises like Mulamadhyamaka-karika or Vigraha-Vyavartani, clearly refer to this term with explanation. Its reference is found in the writings of the rival schools of Indian philosophies including the Hindu as well as the Jaina works. Asatkhyativada, as exposed by these works, means that in erroneous perception there is merely the perception of something which is unreal (asat). In the shell-silver illusion, the silver that is perceived is neither real as something external nor even real as something internal. Therefore, it is absolutely unreal. If the silver would have been externally real then there would not have been any scope for erroneous perception. If the silver would have been merely an internal idea then also there would have been no explanation with regard to its external manifestation. It is, as such, asat or sunya. To put it in other words, it is the asat which is the object of perception in this context. Thus the erroneous perception is declared to be 'non-being's apprehension'.1 One becomes aware of the non-being of silver only when the erroneous perception is sublated by the valid perception. From this account of the theory of Asatkhyati it becomes clear that the silver which is perceived in the shell-silver illusion is really non-existent. It is neither the silver which was perceived in a different place previously nor is it a momentary silver exclusively limited to the moment of illusion. It is totally non-existent or asat. It is asat which is falsely perceived as sat, i.e., silver. A totally non-existent is apprehended as existent. The silver in the shell-silver illusion being absolutely unreal nowhere exists. It neither exists in the present situation nor even anywhere else. Error arises in taking something totally non-existent as existent. If the objective of Asatkhyativada is only to expose the unreality of silver as against its apparent reality then this theory is hardly dipsutable even by its rivals. Because all are to agree that in error that which appears to be real is actually not real. The silver that appears to be real in the shellsilver illusion is not real. This is what illusion ordinarily stands for. But the theory of Astakhyati, it is said, is not simply to advocate the unreality of the 'silver' alone. It is also maintained that according to this theory, whatever is perceived as the 'silver' is also mere non-being. That means the 'shell' which is ordinarily accepted to be real as against the 'silver' is also rejected by the present theory to be not really existing. Asatkhyati stands for complete void or sunya. And in that sense, the ordinarily accepted erroneous perception as well as the valid perception are declared to be erroneous. Only the erroneous character of the 'shell' is not empirically known because of its practical utility. To put it in other words, while the 'silver' is taken as absolutely unreal, it is also implied by this theory that nothing real as the basis of this unreal 'silver7 is even acceptable. Along with the rejection of error its locus (adhisthana) is also rejected. And it is this rejection of locus which is argued to be the distinguishing feature of the theory of Asatkhyati. But here the Vedahtins, the Naiyayikas and many others argue that how can a totally non-existent thing at all be apprehended.1 An absolute naught cannot even be conceived (e.g., son of a barren woman), what to speak of its being perceived. It is a matter of experience that shell is misperceived as silver. This shows that something is being apprehended as something else. So the silver characterisation of the pre'sent object may be found to be wrong after later verification but that something as the locus of silver characterisation is positively present even at the time of error, there can be least doubt about it. Hence it is not the.absolute nothing (sunya) which is perceived as something existent (sat) but something is apprehended as some other thing. Shell in the form of 'this' remains, however, as the basis of silver-apprehension. So something existent appears as silver and not that non-existent appears as existent. Even if one agrees the point that the silver that is perceived in illusion is unreal yet the referent on which silver is perceived cannot

be rejected as void or sunya. The defect lies with Asatkhyativada that it not only negates silver but also the 'this' or the very basis of error along with error. It is pointed out by way of defending the theory of Asatkhyati that when the eyes are pressed the woolly mass of substances (kesondrakas) that appear before the eyes are without any locus. It is possible that a person while dreaming may have also another dream within that range of first dream. The second dream obviously does not have any real basis as that occurs only within another dream. So also it is argued that erroneous perception points at some unreal substance which has no real loucs. It is argued that in error the sunya is mistaken as shell and again this unreal shell is further taken to be silver. Sankhya asserts the universality of methods of knowledge, but in a quite different sense than current science. It says that seeing, touching, tasting, hearing and smelling are the universal ways of knowing, as these ways are methods by which consciousness can know, which applies to all species of life. This is pretty much what Berkeley also said when asserting the primacy of secondary properties (color, sound, taste) as compared to primary properties (length, mass, charge). We observe extension and we derive length from it. We hear sound and we derive a frequency from it. So, what we know is secondary properties although primary properties are derived from them. Nevertheless, there is a lot of variety in the ways in which we see, touch, taste, hear or smell. A dog can smell danger while we cannot. A monkey can climb trees while we may not. But, Sankhya asserts that every species of life is basically seeing, touching, tasting, hearing and smelling. The detailed variety of seeing, tasting, touching might change from one species to another, but the kind of sensations dont. Science too is an adjustment to the kinds of sensations available a few centuries back. A large variety of human beings have liked the methods of science and hence it exists as a collective activity. The meta-methods by which we would decide the superiority of one method over another is basically the same by which we would determine why one species is better than the other. A species of life, like a method of knowing, is ultimately a choice. But, all choices are not equal; some are better than the others. To choose a method of knowing is also to choose a way of living and there is a strong dependency between our way of life and the methods of knowledge. Sankhya takes this point and asserts that the dependency exists not just in human awareness but in any species of life whatever. A philosophy of life is thus also a philosophy of nature. The dependency of knowledge on choice of method ties religion and science together, because both depend upon a choice of method. The contention should not be that one is real while the other is faith, but which method is superior and why. So, it boils down to the question of why the scientific method is superior, which now require meta-theoretic criteria to evaluate a method per se. But, what are the meta-methods to qualify a method over other methods? A choice of method brings a way of life and its associated ways of thinking, knowing and doing things. But, why would we choose one method over another? What is the rationality in choice? We all choose because we want to be happy. The rationality of choice ends in the quest for pleasure. The differences in choices are governed by what we find pleasurable in life. Thus, we have chosen the methods of science, because we found pleasure in the outcomes it produced. Sankhya describes that pleasure further depends upon three modes of nature sattva, rajas and tamas which determine what we find pleasurable. A living being in the mode of sattva finds knowledge and renunciation pleasing and he searches for peace and satisfaction. A living being in the mode of rajas finds activity and achievement pleasing and he wants to maximize his ownership of worldly goods. A living being in the mode of tamas abhors work and is addicted to enjoyment without labor. The variety of species of life arises through combination of the three modes. Each of these kinds of living beings has a different view of life and a different method of knowledge and activity. Through their combination, there arise a very large number of forms of life and an even larger number of choices in each form of life. The choice of methods and the reality it gives rise to are a product of a specific kind of pleasure need. Reality by itself exists in a very subtle conceptual form. This conceptual reality gradually becomes sensible quite like a machine comes from a design or a building from a construction plan. When

we see a city within a desert, it is obvious, that the idea of making the city preceded the city. Methods and actions were applied to the idea to first develop detailed plans and then someone acted upon the plan. Reality in the Sankhya view manifests through a series of steps from pure idea to pure thing. There are a variety of concepts and a variety of methods, and these together constitute reality. Choosing a concept depends upon the guna or mode of nature and choice of a method depends upon the ability in the person, also called karma. By choosing concepts and methods, and applying methods to concepts, we construct experience. Both concepts and methods however have a hierarchy, given by the hierarchy in the modes of nature. Thus, a person in sattva will employ different concepts and methods than a person in rajas or tamas. The hierarchy in the universe exists because choice of reality depends upon a hierarchical system of modes. Sattva is higher than rajas which is higher than tamas. There is thus an objective criterion by which to evaluate a choice, because the choice depends upon the modes of nature, which are given by a hierarchical preference. Thus there are good ideas and bad ideas; good actions and bad actions. The choice of concept and method is a choice of life.